Devin's Journal

Christianity 101

Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:14 GMT

I recently read this article on a website that made me lol and rofl at the same time. Perfectly describing Christianity in a strangely bizarre nutshell:

"An almighty God decided he was either bored or lonely so he creates a universe of immense size to house one small, third-rate planet where he can create beings whose purpose is to make him feel better by loving and adoring him.

Since God needed to be sure his created people would only love him because they chose to love him, he gave humans the free choice not to believe him. Unfortunately, the very first human chose to ignore this God, and this God got all pissed and put a curse on the little planet and all its future inhabitants. In fact, he even created a scenario where after the first human chose to disobey, all subsequent humans would be born automatically bound for hell unless they accepted God's bizarre get-out-of-hell-free option. Rather than simply give humans the option to die and no longer exist, this God decided he would forever burn the skin off of those who didn't choose to love and adore him.

Thus this God, in his infinite love, informed his created people that they need to either love and adore him or they'll go to the hell he created, which basically negates the idea of giving people free will. After all, most humans will make choices they would not otherwise make when someone is holding a gun to their head.

Of course, this God, knowing everything that will happen in the future, foresees that more than 95% of the people he creates (without asking us if we wanted to be created) will either not be well enough informed to get out of hell or will simply reject the idea of a need for Christian salvation. But the Christian God, knowing this in advance, still decided to create these humans even though he knew he'd end up torturing billions of them in an endless lake of fire, all so he could have a handful of the faithful to give him love and adoration.

Not yet satisfied, this God decides to create his get-out-of-hell-free card by killing his own creation or by killing his own son. First he has his followers kill and burn animals because he really got off smelling the burning blood. Then he turned his son into one of his creation so he could have him beaten and killed with his blood flowing everywhere. And to top it off, he also said that those who love and adore him should then either symbolically or literally eat the human flesh and drink the human blood of his son in order to fully love and adore this God.

This God really loves spilling blood and then making people drink it.

Finally, this God decided to tell his created people of this plan through a cryptic and hard to interpret set of books and then relied on his created people to join together to decide which of those books really came from this God and which ones did not. They couldn't do it based on evidence, however, so they just basically guessed. Because this God didn't decide to make it clear to all humans just how to get their get-out-of-hell-free card, this God allowed the obvious confusion to lead to thousands of different interpretations of this set of books, meaning many who think they have found God's get-out-of-hell-free card actually will still be tossed into the lake of fire by this loving God.

Oh, and to make it even worse, this God decides to be mute most of the time, and instead asks those who love and adore him to be his spokespeople, thus allowing all kinds of strange things to be said in his name.

Amen, and pass the plate."

From: http://elroy.net/ehr/christianity101.html

Resolutions

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:02:49 GMT

Every year I make resolutions, and most times I keep them (barring my resolution from this year which I have yet to keep). To ensure that I am able to keep them, I will be making my resolutions easier. So, without further ado, my resolutions for 2008:

1) Work out more often

This is a real no-brainer. I have a membership to the YMCA. I should really be using it more. So, for 2008, I will. I need to get in shape for heading to Cabo in June.

2) Be a little more confident with women

I’m usually a pretty confident person. I’m comfortable with where I am in life, in addition to where I am going. So, I have to wonder why I’ve been unable to meet someone. Well, I think it’s a confidence issue. I usually don’t try because it seems like the girls I see all want frat boys with tight shirts and absolutely no brain in their heads. Maybe if I get over this it shouldn’t be so bad.

3) Bitch out anyone wearing anything bearing the image of Che Guevara

Let’s face it, most people who wear shirts with El Che on them don’t realize what a horrible despicable person he really was. Granted, his movement helped topple the dictatorship within Cuba, but it lead to the rise of Castro, which threw the country into another type of turmoil. In addition, he headed up trials with questionable legality, seemingly passing judgement on the accused before the trial. Not just leaders of the previous government, but CIVILIANS. That means he most likely executed innocent people to meet his agenda. Real freedom fighter, there. So, anytime I see someone with a Che shirt, I want to enlighten them on the finer points of the Che Guevara saga. Stop wearing these fucking shirts, people.

4) Level 70

For WoW nerds, this makes sense. I’ve got a 53 Hunter and 22 Pally. I’d like both to be 70 by at LEAST March. This should be an easy resolution, methinks.

5) Car

I needs a fucking car.

That pretty much does it. Easy resolutions to keep, and I like it that way…

Shit...

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:51:03 GMT

Howdy folks. It's been a while, and for that I am sorry. Sorry mostly that you have to read my bitching again. Well, you don't really HAVE to read it, but you know... here it is...

It's been a real rollercoaster lately. I'm partially sick right now, so that isn't helping my mood an incredibly large amount. I realize how much I shoot myself in the foot. I've made a lot of mistakes in my life. I'm openly admitting that. It's not a problem saying it because I know that it's true. Call a spade a spade, so to speak. However, one thing I've always been quite proud of is my ability to not interfere with anyone else's relationship. That's not to say I haven't given input when my opinion is asked, but I'm referring to a more "hands-on" approach if you get my meaning.

When you meet a girl's significant other for the first time, you are most likely going to shake his hand; it's common courtesy, of course. What most women don't realize is that this very handshake is a pact between the two men. Not a "We're always going to be friends!" pact, but rather an unspoken pact that sets the most strict of groundrules. Now, this rule is different depending on the situation between the two men, but this iron-clad pact cannot be broken after the handshake has been made.

Now, you may be asking, "Devin, what is this rule? Why is this so important? Where are you going with this?" Well, I'll get the rule out of the way first. As a blanket rule, when a man shakes the hand of a man who is in a relationship, the "Non-fooling Pact" is formed. With this pact, the man entering the pact is agreeing that upon execution of the handshake, he will not break the following rules:

1) He will not make a pass at the other man's significant other.
2) He is not allowed to fool around with the other man's significant other, even if the significant other provokes it.
3) Any touching below the eyebrows is considered awkward at best, deathly at worst, and certainly NEVER acceptable.
4) No attempt shall be made to inhibit the growth of the relationship of the man and his significant other.
5) If the significant other wants to hang out, either her partner much be present, or the hanging out must be done in a public location with no dark corners.

These rules, though unspoken, form the basis of the male friendship. The "Non-Fooling Pact" has also been called the "Don't Fuck My wife/girlfriend Pact" or the "Look at Her the Wrong Way and I'll beat your Ass Pact". Either way, the rules remain the same.

Why do I bring this up? Why does this really matter in my life? I'm a straight arrow. I believe in the sanctity of this pact, and I have never violated ANY of these rules... until recently.

I can hear the *gasps* through the internet right now. "But Devin, WHY?!" Well, let's say that it is really quite complicated, and not quite entirely my fault, although I did manage to break 3 of these rules in one evening, with help of course.

I won't give a timeframe on this. I won't mention names. Maybe the setting has been changed. The core facts of this story remain valid, but for the sake of anonymity for those involved, I will be retooling some of this story. You won't know what has been changed and what's not. That's the beauty of it.

So, I was hanging out with some friends one evening, and as usual, it involved drinking towards the end. We decided to grab lunch together, and I met a girl and her boyfriend. I shook the boyfriend's hand (thus sealing the pact). I'd done this before with the other couple there, so far without incident. We ate, had a beer or two, and then later in the evening went on to another sporting activity; one that involves more beer. The boyfriend I mentioned earlier decided to bow out since he had a lot of work to complete at home. So, the girlfriend tagged along with the rest of us since she wasn't quite ready to turn in (after all, it was only 8 at night). So we drink, have fun, and she keeps talking about how I'm her new favorite person, and we're getting along just swimmingly.

Bear in mind, I flirt a lot. It's just something I do with everyone, really. I don't do it because I mean for anything to happen, but just for the sake of doing it, and this girl was playing along, and quite good at it, I might add. We decide to hit another bar, so when we're leaving she's talking about riding in my car, etc. Analyzing rule #5 in my mind,
and gauging the evening's events, I decided that she should probably ride with my friends. No issue.

We get to the bar, and it's a dance club. No problem. This girl had bought a pitcher earlier in the evening, so I bought us both Vodka Cranberries to repay. We chug those babies down, and then have a seat and start talking. I can't help but notice she's getting touchy feely and that some of the things she's talking about are rather risque. I chalked
it up to her personality, which she's been showing throughout the night anyway. Finally, she stands up, grabs a friend of mine by the hand and they head to the dance floor. Since they're both in a relationship and their significant others had bowed out, it was fair play. No rules violated, and it wasn't like crazy grinding/dry humping. Just dancing.
They dance (somewhat drunkenly) for a couple songs and then they come back to where I'm sitting, enjoying my drink. At this point, she grabs my hand and pulls me to the dance floor. I see nothing wrong with this given the dancing I witnessed earlier. She's just going to dance with me like she danced with my friend, right?

...Nope...

She starts grinding, touching, and getting pretty close. At this point, all hell breaks loose. After having a few drinks, I decide it's okay because I REALLY didn't want to ruin the evening, so I play along and dance, whatever. We're not screwing, and we're not doing anything I would have a SERIOUS objection to if it were my girlfriend. Objection,
probably. Serious objection, no. We head off the floor again and she's rubbing my leg and at this point I feel a little awkward. I back off a little, but it doesn't work too well. Back out to the dance floor and she's dancing with me again. She leans close to me and says, "If you want something, you have to take it.", at which point she shoves her tongue
into my mouth. Now, what was really running through my mind was my blatant violation of rule #2, but somehow I couldn't bring myself to just rip her off me. So, here we are, on the dance floor, effectively making out, and the only thought running through my head is "God, I hope my friends can't see this." After a minute or so, we head off the dance
floor to sober up (at least I did since I was driving; she kept going), and effectively pretend it never happened until we part ways. My friend was driving her home since he lived in the direction of her house. Thank god, too. I can't imagine what could have happened if she had ridden with me.

Right when I get home, I receive a text message about how she wants me to come get her because she wants me. Absolutely absurd and wrong. I wrote back and called her evil and said that her boyfriend might not like that. End of conversation. I receive a text message the next day saying she "gets a little frisky when she gets drunk", that I'm a good "partner in crime" and she will "stay in touch".

So, yeah. I feel pretty dirty. I've been ignoring the issue since it happened, but does not help that the only women I seem to attract are mentally unstable or taken. So that's all that's been going on lately. Just a bunch of normal fucked up shit... Feels good to get it off my chest, though...

Moving!

Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:20:46 GMT

Well, it's about time I made the leap, but I have purchased my own domain name. Yes, you, my friends, will be the first I will introduce to the outstanding bit of nothingness that is www.dctheee.com!

Seriously, I just started it, so there's not much there, but I'm adding a blog service, so I don't need Livejournal anymore! So, for all your blog needs, please direct your web browser to www.dctheee.com and click on "Blog" on the left-hand side of the page.

:-D

Paradiso...

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 01:58:57 GMT

Once upon a time, a king gave a feast. And there came the most beautiful princesses of the realm. Now, a soldier, who was standing guard, saw the king's daughter go by. She was the most beautiful one, and he immediately fell in love with her. But what could a poor soldier do when it came to the daughter of the king? Well, finally, one day, he managed to meet her, and he told her that he could no longer live without her. The princess was so impressed by his strong feelings that she said to the soldier: "If you can wait 100 days and 100 nights under my balcony, then at the end of it, I shall be yours." The soldier immediately went there and waited one day. And two days. And ten. And then twenty. And every evening, the princess looked out of her window, but he never moved. During rain, during wind, during snow, he was always there. The birds shat on his head, and the bees stung him, but he didn't budge. After ninety nights, he had become all dried up, all white, and the tears streamed from his eyes. He couldn't hold them back. He no longer had the strength to sleep. All that time, the princess watched him. And on the 99th night, the soldier stood up, took his chair, and went away. In one more night, the princess would have been his. But she also could not possibly have kept her promise. And it would have been terrible. He would have died. This way, however, at least for 99 days, he was living under the illusion that she was there, waiting for him.

Just fantastic...

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:53:11 GMT

What's that Lassie? The Pentagon is supplying terrorists with rifles intended for Iraqi security forces? Body armor too?! Say it ain't so!

http://www.rttnews.com/sp/breakingnews.asp?date=08/06/2007&item=45&vid=0

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/08/pentagon-cant-a.html

This is ridiculous. Losing 30% of the supply just into thin air? At that level, we're funding terrorism, not fighting it.

Teh intarweb

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:57:15 GMT

Every time I lose all faith in the internet, I stumble across a gem like this:

Faith restored. Catchy music and hot babes? Oh yeaaaaa

Not Today, Motherfucker!

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 01:56:56 GMT

Ladies with no clothes on...

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:26:36 GMT

I met a very nice girl named Darcelle, whom I spoke of a few posts back. She's a hostess at a club here in Cedar Rapids, insanely cute, fiesty, and intelligent. We haven't hung out lately because of her schedule, but that's okay. We keep in regular contact... and by regular contact, I mean when I'm out drinking and she happens to be working.

Anyway, I was out drinking with ex-coworkers last Friday night (which was awesome, of course), when I came upon a good friend and marine buddy of another friend of mine. He also happens to know Darcelle because he's a bouncer at Dublin City (this particular bar), so they're coworkers. I told him I'd be out that night, so he kept a couple seats open for us. Seats are in short supply at Dublin City on Friday nights, after all. So, we drank for a while, and were having a pretty good time. Darcelle picked up our table, and was being flirty as normal. She was tossing her gum in my beer, rubbing her ass on me, and such (which I don't really mind, because come on, I'm a guy, and we're supposed to like that, right?). I ignore her for the most part, partially because she has a boyfriend, and partially because I'm still kind of mad she took so long to tell me that she had a boyfriend... But I digress. Drinking, merryment, etc. etc. Finally, this buddy of mine leans over the table and says, "You know, Darcelle's a porn star, right?" I kind of laughed at this statement, and figured he was just making a sarcastic comment or something. After a good few seconds of laughing, I looked at him, and he was serious... He smiled that kind of evil smile, which told me he wasn't lying.

Intrigued, I said, "Okay, what makes you think that?" To which he replied, "Because I found out she's on this one site. Her porn name is 'Sophia'" I laughed again because it was all so absurd, but yet, he was still serious.

When I went home that evening, I found out that he was, in fact, absolutely correct. Darcelle is a porn star. Softcore stuff only, mind you, but still. It was kind of shocking. I know most guys would probably be turned on by that sort of thing, but I think it's an incredible turn-off, which is good anyway because she has her cop boyfriend to look after her.

Oh well, I suppose now I can claim to know a porn star?

Being Political...

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:16:14 GMT

If you've never heard of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, it's understandable. However, if you've been keeping up on the hubbub over at the Justice Department and particularly Attorney General Gonzales' repeated, blantant obstructions of justice, you'll understand why Leahy is, quite frankly, one of my newest heroes on the issue.

Before congress, he gave this written opening statement:

"Three months ago, when Attorney General Gonzales last appeared before this Committee, I said that the Department of Justice was experiencing a crisis of leadership perhaps unrivaled during its history. Unfortunately, that crisis has not abated. Until there is independence, transparency and accountability, it will continue. The Attorney General has lost the confidence of the Congress and the American people. Through oversight we hope to restore balance and accountability to the Executive Branch. The Department of Justice must be restored to be worthy of its name. It should not be reduced to another political arm of the White House. The trust and confidence of the American people in federal law enforcement must be restored.

With the Department shrouded in scandal, the Deputy Attorney General has announced his resignation. The nominee to become Associate Attorney General requested that his nomination be withdrawn rather than testify under oath at a confirmation hearing. The Attorney General’s chief of staff, the Deputy Attorney General’s chief of staff, the Department’s White House liaison and the White House Political Director have all resigned, as have others. I would joke that the last one out the door should turn out the lights, but the Department of Justice is too important for that -- we need to shine more light there, not less.

The investigation into the firing for partisan purposes of United States Attorneys, who had been appointed by this President, along with an ever-growing series of controversies and scandals have revealed an Administration driven by a vision of an all-powerful Executive over our constitutional system of checks and balances, that values loyalty over judgment, secrecy over openness, and ideology over competence.

The accumulated and essentially uncontroverted evidence is that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States Attorneys last year. Testimony and documents show that the list was compiled based on input from the highest political ranks in the White House, that senior officials were apparently focused on the political impact of federal prosecutions, on whether federal prosecutors were doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases, and that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover up.

What the White House stonewalling is preventing is conclusive evidence of who made the decisions to fire these federal prosecutors. We know from the testimony that it was not the President. Everyone who has testified has said that he was not involved. None of the senior officials at the Department of Justice could testify how people were added to the list or the real reasons that people were included among the federal prosecutors to be replaced. Indeed, the evidence we have been able to collect points to Karl Rove and the political operatives at the White House. The stonewalling by the White House raises the question: What is it that the White House is so desperate to hide?

The White House has asserted blanket claims of executive privilege, despite officials’ contentions that the President was not involved. They refuse to provide a factual basis for their blanket claims, have instructed former White House officials not to testify about what they know, and then instructed Harriet Miers to refuse even to appear as required by a House Judiciary Committee subpoena. Now, anonymous officials are claiming that the statutory mechanism to test White House assertions of Executive privilege no longer governs. In essence this White House asserts that its claim of privilege is the final word, that Congress may not review it, and that no court can review it. Here, again, this White House claims to be above the law.

My oath, unlike those who have apparently sworn their allegiance to this President, is to the United States Constitution. I believe in checks and balances and in the rule of law.

Despite the stonewalling and obstruction, we have learned that Todd Graves, U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Missouri was fired after he expressed reservations about a lawsuit that would have stripped many African-American voters from the rolls in Missouri. When the Attorney General replaced Mr. Graves with Bradley Schlozman, the person pushing the lawsuit, that case was filed and ultimately thrown out of court. Once in place in Missouri though, Mr. Schlozman also brought indictments on the eve of a closely contested election, despite the Justice Department policy not to do so. This is what happens when a responsible prosecutor is replaced by a “loyal Bushie” for partisan, political purposes.

Mr. Schlozman also bragged about hiring ideological soulmates. Monica Goodling likewise admitted “crossing the line” when she used a political litmus test for career prosecutors and immigration judges. Rather than keep federal law enforcement above politics, this Administration is more intent on placing its actions above the law.

The Attorney General admitted recently in a video for Justice employees that injecting politics into the Department’s hiring is unacceptable. But is he committed to corrective action and routing out the partisanship in federal law enforcement? His lack of independence and tendency to act as if he were the President’s lawyer rather than the Attorney General of the United States makes that doubtful. From the infamous torture memo, to Mr. Gonzales’ attempt to prevail on a hospitalized Attorney General Ashcroft to certify an illegal eavesdropping program, to the recent opinion seeking to justify Harriet Miers’ contemptuous refusal to appear before the House Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department has been reduced to the role of enabler for this Administration. What we need instead is genuine accountability and real independence.

We learned earlier this year of systematic misuse and abuse of National Security Letters, a powerful tool for the Government to obtain personal information without the approval of a court or prosecutor. The Attorney General has said he had no inkling of these or other problems with vastly expanded investigative powers. Now we know otherwise. Recent documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act lawsuits and reported in The Washington Post indicate that the Attorney General was receiving reports in 2005 and 2006 of violations in connection with the PATRIOT Act and abuses of National Security Letters. Yet, when the Attorney General testified under oath before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in April 2005, he said that “[t]he track record established over the past three years has demonstrated the effectiveness of the safeguards of civil liberties put in place when the Act was passed.” Earlier this month, in responses to written questions I sent to the Attorney General about when he first learned of problems with National Security Letters, he once again failed to mention these reports of problems.

Only with the openness and honesty that brings true accountability will the Department begin to move forward and correct the problems of the last few years. Instead, we have leadership at the Department of Justice whose expressions of concern and admissions that mistakes were made only follow public revelations and amount to regrets that their excesses were uncovered.

In the wake of growing reports of abuses of National Security Letters, the Attorney General announced a new internal program. This supposed self-examination, with no involvement by the courts, no report to Congress, and no other outside check, essentially translates to “trust us.” With a history of civil liberties abuses and cover-ups, this Administration has squandered our trust. Earlier internal reviews, like the Intelligence Oversight Board and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board have been ineffective and inactive, failing to take action on the violations reported to them. Only with a real check from outside of the Executive branch can we have any confidence that abuses will be curbed and balance restored.

A tragic dimension of the ongoing crisis of leadership at the Justice Department is the undermining of good people and the crucial work that it does. Thousands of honest, hard-working prosecutors, agents, and other civil servants labor every day to detect and prevent crime, uncover corruption, promote equality and justice, and keep us safe from terrorism. Sadly, prosecutions will now be questioned as politically-motivated and evidence will be suspected of having been obtained in violation of laws and civil liberties. Once the government shows a disregard for the independence of the justice system and the rule of law, it is very hard to restore the people’s faith. This Committee will do its best to try to restore independence, accountability, and commitment to the rule of law to the operations of the Justice Department."

Pfew... that's alot to read, but I'll be damned if this man isn't a living legend to me, and if I was Gonzales, I'd be shitting a brick right now...

Obviously...

Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:33:37 GMT

It's a slow day in news:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072001039.html?hpid=moreheadlines

There are two scary things about this story:

1) They wrote it
2) Cheney would have Bush's presidential powers for a possible 2 hours...

Wait, number 2 happens all the time anyway. Still makes for 2 scary things...

Update

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:27:06 GMT

Well, there's not much to report here. Things are looking at least a little up since my last posting... which was pretty down.

After work today I'm driving to the Cedar Valley Humane Society to pick up the dog I adopted! Her name is Daisy and she's a Lhasa Apso mix. I'm not sure what the mix is, but whatever, she's adorable, and very gentle. She's got a light tannish coat. I'll post pictures on Facebook and such.

I've been looking for a dog for about 2 weeks, and I can tell you, they don't really make it easy to adopt. Whereas, I could drive to a puppy mill and pick up a dog and take it home that day, I had to fill out forms and essentially make a case as to why I feel I'd be a great owner. Then it gets passed to a shelter director and they have to check over the application. After adoption, there is a possible home visit within days, and you're required to visit a licensed veterinarian within a week of the adoption date. I was surprised they didn't make me take a urine test. I realize the importance of this procedure, but it seems a little overwhelming. It's in the dog's best interest... I keep telling myself that. Regardless, I would NEVER buy from a puppy mill. I believe everyone should go through the Humane Society. There are so many loving, gentle, unfortunate dogs that just want to find a loving home. It's sad that people feel the need to spend $1500 on a mutt (all those chic dogs like Cockapoos or Puggle). It's ridiculous, and it angers me to no end. How could you possibly claim to be a dog lover when you buy a dog like that?

Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm very excited to have a new addition to my house, and I would encourage anyone else considering a new animal to check the Humane Society first.

applaud

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:46:17 GMT

She kind of acts like a psychopath, but if I had to report everything about Paris Hilton, from her taking a shit to walking to her car, I'm pretty sure I would do this too:

I'm proud of this journalist's resolve despite the fact that her producer is obviously trying to get her to do the story as the LEAD story. I think her coanchors can't BELIEVE what she is doing, and she looks like a nutter, but whatever. Thank fucking god somebody in the media is actually taking a stand against all this Paris Hilton shit.

However retarded her fellow anchors really are, I at least like the comment about Paris wanting to "further the kingdom of God in heaven." I chuckled about that one.

God bless the USA...

cough

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:57:30 GMT

Yeah, I got this in a Spam E-mail today...

I laughed...

"If you can't persuade ur girl that she deserves only your tiny size, so, never mind, just try out our wonderful pellet and you'll show your girlfriend a REAL SIZE!"

*cough*

Enough said

Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:18:54 GMT

"Personally, I would be delighted if there were a life after death, especially if it permitted me to continue to learn about this world and others, if it gave me a chance to discover how history turns out."

-Carl Sagan

Panic attack

Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:35:02 GMT

I had a panic attack today followed by a severe depression today, and the worst part was that I was at work....

I was having a great day, and everything was going well at work, and then for some reason, someone I used to know suddenly popped into my mind. There was no real trigger for this feeling, which made it seem every more eiree, but I panicked... plain and simple. I got on my phone and messaged one of my close friends to ask if she had contact information for this girl. Neither of us had really talked to her since High School, so all she had was a possibly outdated phone number, and I'm certainly not going to call someone and be like, "OH MY GOD, I HAVEN'T TALKED TO YOU IN 4 YEARS, BUT ARE YOU OKAY?!?!" Can you imagine how psycho that would be?

Anyway, I got this feeling instantly, and near as quickly as it came, it was replaced with depression. I seriously sat in my cubicle, kind of listlessly pushing buttons and wasting time because I had absolutely NO motivation to do anything.

A couple weeks ago I mentioned going through some old notes and finding a card from a close, personal friend from high school. Well, this was the girl. In case you didn't read that entry, or just don't remember, I'll bring you up to speed in a couple paragraphs...

This girl, Katie, and I had been hanging out, and I guess "sort of" dating my junior/senior year. She was fantastic... everything a man could ever want. We watched old movies together, drank coffee. In so many ways, she was my perfect match. She was a dancer, and very well-spoken. We could talk about anything in absolutely confidence. We got closer and closer, but for some reason I pulled away. I couldn't tell you why because I still TO THIS DAY, do not understand my motivation for doing so, and I certainly didn't at the time.

Well, we basically just kept drifting further and further apart, and with my moving to college, it pretty much ended. By that time, she was seeing some guy named Harry who was going to Kentucky on a tennis scholarship or something, and she was determined to follow him. Her parents moved, so there was never much chance to see her during summers, and we just grew completely apart. She'd pop into my mind rarely, and even then it'd be a "Huh, wonder what Katie is up to" kinda thing. Nothing real serious. I would talk to my friend Lindsey, and found out she had been engaged at one point, which didn't really affect me too much more than a illiciting a apathetic shrug.

Well, today I thought of her, but more serious than ever. I just thought about how close we were, how much we had in common... how close we were, and how insanely happy I could have been. She was perfect in every possible way. She was forgiving, gentle, kind, and above all, beautiful (not just speaking physically here, mind you). I'm absolutely sure that she loved me, but I fear I'll never know, and even if I do, will it help things? Does she still think about me sometimes? Does she know I think about her sometimes, but even more now? Is there a chance to take it all back?

...million to one...

Adventures in workplace newspaper reading!

Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:39:25 GMT

Every day at lunch I get a chance to read the Cedar Rapids Gazette, which is a shithole newspaper posing as a crappy newspaper. They have little to nothing in the way of content, and my favorite article is by a bitter old man who usually complains about dumb stuff like how "Tiger Woods hogs the spotlight", or how "those damn kids should stay off the lawn *grumble grumble*". It's truly nice and refreshing to have a bitter old man's perspective of things. I don't get enough of this at the grocery store while waiting in line for the woman ahead of me to get $0.20 off her $120 order because the cashier made "a mistake".

Anyway, I digress. I was reading the newspaper today, and I came across the following mildly infuriating commentary, reminding me, yet again, how much I hate overzealous Bush-nauts with neo-judeo-christian morals that seem to make them believe everyone else should believe what THEY believe, UNDER PENALTY OF LAW AND ETERNAL DAMNATION.

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of friends who are Christian, and that's all fine and dandy, but they don't try and push their values on me, and I don't push mine on them. It's a win-win. I don't have to hear about god, and they don't have to hear that he's not for me. WELL, here, word for word, is a letter to the editor from the Gazette... (usually I can take letters to the editor with a good chuckle, but geesh...)

(to interrupt, I just received an e-mail telling me I had a Facebook invitation for a group in favor of making English the national language, with all generally racist reasons to back it up ("learn the language or get out", "government ballots SHOULDN'T be in Spanish", "I HATE telephone menus with the options for Spanish because it takes too long to get through them")... REAL fucking nice)

*ahem*

"ABORTION, GAYS WILL BRING THIS COUNTRY DOWN

In the May 31 letter 'Bush administration has turned U.S. into basket case,' the writer remarks how President Bush has taken Bill Clinton's treasury surplus. Clinton, had no surplus. The surplus he had he stole from the Social Security Trust Fund. Yours and my trust fund. The writer also remarks about the country's decline in moral values. I think God will have a hand in the fall of this country because of the butchering of 3,500 of his babies by abortion every day and because of the escalating rights given to homosexuals. But he is also a God of justice and this country will pay for its actions.

-Patricia Cook, Manchester"

Let's step back for a second and analyze this. Bad grammer aside, she makes no real point in this letter; instead, she opts for a quick retort built solely on misplaced ideology. I'm not sure what God she is referring to, but I'm going to believe it's the judeo-christian God.

Mistake #1: Bill Clinton never once dragged us into an unneccesary war on false pretenses. Sure, he took a little bit of money from the Chinese, but hell, they've been taking it from us for years with all our technology patents we sold to overseas companies. It happens. Have that money, Bill! Pocket that coin! Stop your whining about that, America.

Mistake #2: She used the word "God" and the proper title and name "President Bush" in the same paragraph. Nothing George W. Bush has ANYTHING to do with God. He may think he's doing things in the best interest of the Christian demographic (like the second stem-cell research bill he vetoed today... the cripples thank you!), but really, I see nowhere in the Bible where God condones overthrowing governments because they "attacked my Dad". She could really fix this by using the following sentences to clear up any confusion:

"I wish God would strike down President Bush because he is a money-grubbing/wasting taint-hole."
or the more appropriate
"What the fuck, God? How the hell did you let George and Martha conceive such a monstrosity as President Bush"

Mistake #3: Abortion has nothing to do with God. It has everything to do with the people involved. Keep your filthy hands/government/laws off women's bodies. Do people even REALIZE the psychological effect that an abortion has on a woman? Do some of these people realize that accidents do happen, and sometimes giving birth to a child would be the worst possible scenario? (low-income families without the means to raise a child, irresponsible parents, etc. etc.). Show me where in the bible it says that God is against abortion. Hell, for that matter, tell me where in the bible it says I can cut a woman's hand off for even TOUCHING another man's genitals, even when she's defending her husband... OH WAIT, THAT ONE IS IN THERE. Chose to ignore THAT law, didn't you? Don't pick and choose which bible morals you can live by. (I don't condone chopping off women's hands, by the way, it was just an example...) If anybody should have been aborted at birth, it should have been George W. Bush. His stupid war has single handedly killed 3,200 US citizens since the beginning in 2003. Anybody want to argue about that realistic figure?

Mistake #4: Whether or not you choose to accept it, GAYS ARE PEOPLE TOO. They're conceived, born, grow up to become adults, and live, breath, and are genetically identical to their hetero counterparts (although there's strong evidence for a "gay gene")... They should not be denied basic human rights just because if conflicts with your religion. God will not "wipe out America" because gays have rights. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" ring a bell? The very people crying that their constitutional rights are being infringed upon are the same people who wish to deny others THEIR constitutional rights solely because "it's against my religion". Separation of church and state is there for a fucking reason, folks. It's not solely to protect YOUR religious rights, it's there to protect EVERYONE'S religious rights, no matter how twisted a take you have on your personal religion. If people in the South can handle snakes in the name of God, you can shut the fuck up and let gays do their thing, it doesn't affect you, mmmk?

Mistake #5: I would liken this rant to a dirty man standing on the corner with a cardboard sign around his neck that says, "END OF THE WORLD NEAR". God isn't going to just crush us for this shit. If he hasn't crush ed people that follow what some would call "Pagan Religions" of the world, he's not going to crush us for letting a gay guy get married to the person he loves. Just not going to happen. You know those assholes that stand on campus (for those of you in college) with signs that have pictures of aborted fetuses, and such? You know the people who go around putting pamphlets about "THE EVILS OF ABORTION" on cars? This lady is doing the same thing, but without any concrete statistics. She fails to mention the 200+ women who die of botched abortions every day. If women are THAT desperate to get rid of a child that they would resort to a back-alley booth, don't you think we should throw more government support behind clinics to make sure women are getting PROPER abortions, thus saving many lives? For these people, it's easy to cry for unborn babies, but they'd rather forget the mothers.

The scary thing is, this lady is probably not a dirty, stinky, shabbily-dressed, undermedicated run-of-the-mill psychotic. She probably looks just like the woman down the street, or the lady driving to the grocery store in her SUV with 3 kids throwing Cheerios in the back. She probably looks JUST LIKE YOU OR ME (WOooOoOooOooO), except she lacks one basic thing that makes a human: compassion for your fellow man. Somewhere along the way some Christians got it in their head that it was "US VERSUS THEM". If anything, the bible says you should NEVER EVER be like this.

Come to think of it, this small article doesn't really anger me as much as it depresses me. To think there are people out there that give good Christians a bad name. To think that someone is so wrapped up in their personal beliefs that they would deny someone else their rights. It's a sad state of affairs people. Gays and abortion aren't the things that will cause the fall of our nation... it's the lady down the street.

cough

Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:01:49 GMT

P.S. I'm in my house now

FANTASTIC!!!!

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 03:56:36 GMT

I had a wonderfully fantastic evening! I got home from work and my parents had bought me a complete starter tool set for the house (Craftsman, no less!) including a toolbox, etc. etc. I KNOW I am going to need those, and I never thought I'd say I'm excited to have hand tools for a birthday.

We went to the baseball game, drank some beers, had a good time. I consider myself extremely lucky to have parents I can do these things with. I wouldn't trade them for the world. We drink, joke, and enjoy the game. It's a little slice of heaven once or twice a week.

And to top it all off, I just found out a friend of mine from college is staying with another college friend in Cedar Rapids for the summer, so I'll be able to hang out with them quite a bit. The friend, Adam, and his wife live in Cedar Rapids and he works at Alliant. It just so happened that my friend Margaret (who is a close friend of theirs) got an internship at Alliant as well, so she's staying at their house. I'm SO excited because they're good people, and it'll be like taking a little slice of Ames to CR with me.

All in all, what a fantastic day. Everything is going so well right now!

Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:59:38 GMT

Like the perfect ending,
It won't be long,
Till everything I've ruined has seen me gone,
In time, I pray you'll forgive,
Now you know the man I am,
Can you forgive me?

I fall,
Like the sands of time,
Like some broken rhyme,
At feet no longer there.

If only I could call the rain to melt and wash away the pain you feel
I would
You gave yourself to me and showed me what the truth could be
For that, I say thank you
This was my life
It never made much sense to me...

With every lie that I lived,
Part of me would fade,
Into this empty shadow I've become,
And now I feel so numb,
I no longer know myself,
But I still know you.

I call,
And there's no reply,
Like some phantom cry,
On ears too far away,

I close my eyes and watch as my life passes by,
The only thing I see is you,
For all the times you walked the line for me and standing by my side,
I say thank you,
Here lies my life,
It never felt that real to me.

You'll always mean so much to me,
And there's no reply,
And there's no reply,
You'll never know how much you meant to me,
And there's no reply,
And there's no reply,
You'll never know how much you meant to me.

If only I could call the rain to melt and wash away the pain you feel.
I would.
You gave yourself to me and showed me what the truth could be.
For that, I say thank you.
This was my life.
It never made much sense to me...

I close my eyes and watch as my life passes by,
The only thing I see is you,
For all the times you walked the line for me and standing by my side,
I say thank you,
You in my life,
It all meant so much more to be.

N-Y-R

Mon, 11 Jun 2007 04:06:31 GMT

I mentioned quite a while back how I wanted to keep resolutions I made at the beginning of the year...

Well, so far it's been interesting. I haven't been able to keep up with running because with a 2 hour daily commute, there's not much daylight left for running, and also because I'm just so busy with packing and taking care of business. It's just draining in every sense of the word. Hopefully when I move into my house this Friday, it won't be a problem.

Tomorrow is my birthday, and I'm still not old enough for lower insurance rates.... fuck...

I digress, back to resolutions. My resolution for being more financially responsible has been going well, and tomorrow I will be signing the lease to my house. I couldn't be more excited, and I can't wait to finally be settled in one spot for more than 8 months.

However, certain resolutions have been harder to keep. I made a resolution to be more open with a certain someone in my life, and really, it hasn't happened yet. I still have 6 months to go to keep this resolution, but I'm 6 months in and there are absolutely no signs of me keeping it (though to be fair, there are no signs of me breaking it, either). However, the further I get along, the more doubtful I get. Will being open destroy our friendship? Will it change everything? What the fuck am I thinking? There really is no possible way this could end well, but I'd rather destroy everything than hide the truth, and that's a fact. Feelings are feelings, and unfortunately, they are something that simply CAN'T be ignored. But the good news is I have 6 more months to "postpone" them.... it sounds a lot nicer than saying ignoring them...

Whoever made the statement that laws/resolutions/etc. were made to be broken must have had a real fucking easy life. When I make promises to myself, I have every intention on keeping them. I just hope my heart can keep pace with my brain... or vice versa...

Why?

Sun, 10 Jun 2007 05:16:19 GMT

Why is it that the person I want to be with the most is also the person I couldn't possibly tell this to?

Dammit, I'm such a fucking coward...

Oh lovely.

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:40:22 GMT

Unless you ever hung out with me a bit, you'd never know I'm a Sarah Silverman fan, and here's the exact reason why (forget for two minutes that it's the shitty MTV Movie Awards that gave PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 2 THE BEST PICTURE AWARD *VOMIT*)...

Sure, it's catty, kinda bitchy, and generally not all that comedically inventive, but Paris is a spoiled false-celebrity with absolutely no claim to fame except through her "sex tape" which is really her being infatuated with a night-vision camera (and obviously not her partner) for about half the tape. It's definitely amateur porn. It's not even impressive. It's downright BORING because it's not funny (like most good porn is)... it's just BLAH. I kind of cringed when the crowd started cheering, though. It must be uncomfortable to be in a room with semi-talented people while they demean your untalented ass.

I really do feel sorry for her, though.... but then again, she DID request and get royalties from the DVD sales of her sex tape... Poor little heiress...

Double Standards

Sat, 02 Jun 2007 03:48:56 GMT

I'm sick and tired of double standards...

I don't believe that men should make EVERY move. I don't know who made the rule that it's okay for a woman to wait for a man to make his move, but they're completely out of touch with reality. My friend Samantha and I have fairly differing opinions on this. She believes that men should make the first move most of the time. I believe that men should make moves, but women should just as much. It doesn't make sense to whine about some guy not voicing his feelings when you're not doing the same. Double standard? Yes...

On top of that, I HATE the fact that men are the ones that have to ask women to marry them. How romantic is it really to wait around months for some guy to pop the question you've already answered and you know is coming? I've been around far too many women that say the following:

"God, I just KNOW he is going to ask me to marry him soon! I'm so excited!"

Two weeks later:

"Jesus! I'm getting sick and tired of him waiting to ask me to marry him..."

Um, you could always ask him to marry you. There's no laws against this, right? Huh... well, if you're so sure he's going to marry you, why don't you PREEMPTIVE STRIKE him? I'd consider that romantic. You're not robbing him of his masculinity. If anything, you're saving him from a nervous breakdown.

And at what point did someone determine that you HAVE to have a ring to ask someone to marry you? I thought it wasn't the ring that matters. I've known people that haven't bought an engagement ring just so they could buy a nicer wedding ring. I agree with this. Your wedding ring is going to be around forever, pretty much. Why not spend the most money on it? You'll wear your engagement right for a year on average, unless of course you get it fused to your wedding ring (my mom's ring is like this).

Anyway, I don't think it's fair to expect a guy to pay for everything and make all the moves. Additionally, I don't think it would be fair to expect women to make all the moves as well. There's a certain room for chivalry (which is always important), but is it really chivalry if you're always expected to do it?

Point is, I just get sick of the double standards placed on both sexes. Don't even get me started on the Pimp/Slut double standard. In the case of relationships (or the time leading up to it), I don't think guys should have to do all the work. The one time I didn't was with my last girlfriend, Michelle. SHE was the one that let me know how she felt about me and that she wanted to be with me. That meant so much to me to know she would go out on a limb and do that. It's nice to be spoiled every once in a while.

THAT'S how it should be.... None of this double standard bullshit...

Self-Discovery

Mon, 28 May 2007 03:47:34 GMT

I figured out the exact moment when I no longer feel a connection with someone.

It's the exact moment when I am sexually frustrated with them. I mean, this isn't a "Oh, we've been together a while and we don't have sex like we used to" or anything like that. Love trumps all, of course. But when I pursue women, it takes about a good month to determine whether or not we're compatible, and I place some emphasis on sexual attraction.

Naturally, you SHOULD be sexually attracted to your partner, amongst other things. However, I find it incredibly unattractive at the point where I find myself compromising too much for too little. Things could truly be going okay with that person, but if I don't feel they're going to match my level of commitment, emotionally, mentally, or sexually, I just give the hell up. I can forgive a few things, but I do not have the time nor energy to put up with teasing.

Urban dictionary (of course, the best place to find definitions) says the following:

Tease (n.)
A girl that sexually excites a boy but leaves him with out sexual stimulation; a girl that acts interested in another boy just to seduce him.
i.e. "I know this one girl Jenny, man, she gave her boyfriend blue balls so bad... she got on top of him all wet, then left him hanging... she's the definition of a tease."

Okay, that may be a little bit of a double-standard there (guys can do the same thing), but you get the point. It's hard to remain emotionally attracted to someone when they feel the need to "tease" you along. It's almost as if, "Well, if they're promising physical intimacy and not delivering on that promise, what else are they going to not deliver on?" That could be narrow-minded, but I have my reasons for thinking this. I have a good year and a half of experience on the subject with one particular ex. This isn't just clean out of the blue. I don't have time to devote to a relationship where teasing is part of the game. It's cute in small amounts, yes, but when your major crux is your enticing someone in with words and then leaving them flat, you're better off just not even trying.

I can think of a good couple instances where this has happened within the past six months. I'm by no means a complete whore. I'm quite selective as to who I'm giving my heart/body to. However, the past few women I've seen don't seem to appreciate the other qualities I have, or do and just don't give a shit about the fact that I AM indeed a man, and as such would care to be treated like one every once in a while. Instead, it comes down to mindgames and high school hijinx.

It's boring, it's distasteful, it's unflattering, and it's also a complete waste of my time.

If you think my main reasons for getting into a relationship were to "get some ass", you're sorely mistaken. I've (naturally) had the opportunity to have sex without attachment before and have NOT gone that route because it demeans us both. On the flipside, if I feel an attachment for someone, and they feel the same, there is really no compromise. I would like someone who finds me sexy (emotionally, mentally, physically). I would love to find someone that I can find sexy (emotionally, mentally, physically). I would like both of us to not deny the feelings we have towards each other. I'm not talking hot kinky sex here, just a little intimacy.

Is that too much to ask?

Devin's Journal

Christianity 101

Resolutions

Shit...

Moving!

Paradiso...

Just fantastic...

Teh intarweb

Not Today, Motherfucker!

Ladies with no clothes on...

Being Political...

Obviously...

Update

*applaud*

*cough*

Enough said

Panic attack

Adventures in workplace newspaper reading!

*cough*

FANTASTIC!!!!

N-Y-R

Why?

Oh lovely.

Double Standards

Self-Discovery

applaud

cough

cough